IGN's Silent Hunter 5 Review

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

words

Or we can make the best of what we've got and be happy that we have a modding community that fixes things. I'd much rather have a platform that people can build on than nothing at all.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by janh

And what is it about those pictures...? Did you want to point at something important???

No, I let others discuss the "deeper" meaning of SH5. I just enjoy playing the game and posting screenshots.

Now that a proper historical periscope mod has been released, I can finally play this sim 100% manual TDC/map updates "off" and having a blast toying with convoys. I am finishing my advanced manual targeting tutorial.

We all know SH5 has issues, that it was pushed out too early. This review points out the good and the bad. I keep saying I should go back to SH4 and finish my campaign, but SH5 is so addictive.

[mcarlsonus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Or we can make the best of what we've got and be happy that we have a modding community that fixes things. I'd much rather have a platform that people can build on than nothing at all.

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

[Heretic]

Yeah mookiemookie, it's all your fault. I hope you're satisfied. You ruined it for everyone.

[drtechno]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

Amen, brother. I love how many are trying to justify a sh|tty product.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Yeah mookiemookie, it's all your fault. I hope you're satisfied. You ruined it for everyone.

I hear this so often it's like water off a duck's back.

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

I didn't miss the point of your rant. I just don't agree with it. You can protest all you want, but you'll soon find no subsims to be protesting to Ubi about.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

And I'm sure you're backing up your words by refusing to use mods that fix things so as not to encourage UBI, correct?

[Méo]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,'

Ok how many times have we see comments like this???

A lot of people here seems to think that we're encouraging Ubi to produce crap and blablabla...

It's not the few subsimers like us who bought SH5 (and hope it will become a great sim once heavily modded) that will make a damn difference.

Ubisoft has nothing to gain from making an unfinished game, they just have a lot of new potential customers to lose. (i.e. it's really bad for business in the long term) (Just think about how the game was received by IGN, Gamspot, etc.)

[tater]

Originally Posted by Méo

Ubisoft has nothing to gain from making an unfinished game, they just have a lot of new potential customers to lose. (i.e. it's really bad for business in the long term) (Just think about how the game was received by IGN, Gamspot, etc.)

Then why do they keep doing it?

[Méo]

Originally Posted by tater

Then why do they keep doing it?

1) Bad project planification.

2) It's maybe intentional like a lot of people seems to think.


In any case, sales had always decreased since SH1. (Neal could give the numbers).

[janh]

Originally Posted by tater

Then why do they keep doing it?

That is a question that has remained unanswered by Ubisoft officials since SHIV. And was the thing that everyone was aware of, but hoped it would have been a one time mishap. But well, just look through the pdf and information you can get on the Ubisoft corporate homepage. If you read their latest (business) strategy paper, you maybe get a clearer idea.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by tater

Then why do they keep doing it?

tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question?

Game development (the detailed version)

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.

[Iron Budokan]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question?

Game development (the detailed version)

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.

Speaking for myself, I didn't know this information and I found it very informative. Thank you for posting it.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

Speaking for myself, I didn't know this information and I found it very informative. Thank you for posting it.

Agreed, thanks Neal.

But seems like there's no bright future for submarine simulations.

[IanC]

But who's fault is it if the sales are low?
Don't invest more resources because the game might not/is not selling well? Well what about investing more resources to begin with, then the game would get 9 out of 10 review scores and guess what... high sales!
In other words; put out a quality product, and people will buy.
I don't get it, admittedly I know nothing about the vid game business.